China Warns US to remove THAAD from South Korea

I actually think this was a pretty smart strategic move by Trump. THAAD is primarily a defensive weapon which has been given to South Korea and Japan in response to aggression by North Korea. If China wants to halt further militarization then it can start by getting their psychopath under control.
 
Of course removing THAAD from South Korea would be about as smart as leaving the gates at Huntsville unlocked and laying off all the guards.
 
Musburger1 said:
Here's why China objects to THAAD.

http://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/04/30/americas-new-nuclear-missile-endangers-the-world/
Click to expand...

From their page,

"NOTE: We publish many types of anti-imperialist analysis, including a substantive amount of materials originating with Marxian sources. This is only logical, considering we operate as independent leftists with a strong Marxist foundation ourselves. We do not however endorse any faction or tendency, including Trotskyism. The Greanville Post is published by Greanville Publishing, LLC., which is also responsible for other progressive sites."

At least they're honest about who they are.
 
Mr. Deez said:
From their page,

"NOTE: We publish many types of anti-imperialist analysis, including a substantive amount of materials originating with Marxian sources. This is only logical, considering we operate as independent leftists with a strong Marxist foundation ourselves. We do not however endorse any faction or tendency, including Trotskyism. The Greanville Post is published by Greanville Publishing, LLC., which is also responsible for other progressive sites."

At least they're honest about who they are.
Click to expand...
They are Marxist Socialists, but that isn't relevant to the rationale in the article.
To summarize, China (and the Russians) view the anti- ballistic missile system as part of an integrative nuclear first strike system. The US would launch a powerful first strike taking out silos and most of the launch systems. The anti-ballistic missile system is there to "clean up" when a retaliatory strike is launched. As a result of the US program to have a first-strike strategy, Russia and China have accelerated their arms capacity fearing they no longer have an adequate deterrent.
 
Musburger1 said:
They are Marxist Socialists, but that isn't relevant to the rationale in the article.
To summarize, China (and the Russians) view the anti- ballistic missile system as part of an integrative nuclear first strike system. The US would launch a powerful first strike taking out silos and most of the launch systems. The anti-ballistic missile system is there to "clean up" when a retaliatory strike is launched. As a result of the US program to have a first-strike strategy, Russia and China have accelerated their arms capacity fearing they no longer have an adequate deterrent.
Click to expand...

Not relevant? They're ideologically hostile to the United States, and so obviously that has to be considered in weighing the merits of what they say. If someone tells you he hates your guts and wants you to die, would you trust him if he encouraged you to eat something that he had just given you? Probably not, and these guys should be trusted about as much. And of course, they're regurgitating the same arguments that their ideological allies in the Soviet Union pitched about the US having a missile defense system, which is unsurprising.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Not relevant? They're ideologically hostile to the United States, and so obviously that has to be considered in weighing the merits of what they say. If someone tells you he hates your guts and wants you to die, would you trust him if he encouraged you to eat something that he had just given you? Probably not, and these guys should be trusted about as much. And of course, they're regurgitating the same arguments that their ideological allies in the Soviet Union pitched about the US having a missile defense system, which is unsurprising.
Click to expand...
You should evaluate the argument on its merits, not on whom makes the presentation. China is a Communist nation. Russia is not. The argument boils down to this:
1. Russia and China are comfortable with MAD as a deterrent.
2. The US abandoned MAD and has been pursuing a first-strike policy of nuclear supremacy. THAAD is part of the program.

Depending on your point of view, the US policy is considered threatening and destabilizing. Put on the shoes of the other side once in a while.
 
Musburger1 said:
To summarize, China (and the Russians) view the anti- ballistic missile system as part of an integrative nuclear first strike system. The US would launch a powerful first strike taking out silos and most of the launch systems.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's great. So if China wants THAAD out of South Korea then they can probably achieve that goal by getting their psychopath to comply with the nuclear agreement that North Korea had agreed to decades ago. Otherwise, China can self-fornicate.
 
UTChE96 said:
Yeah, that's great. So if China wants THAAD out of South Korea then they can probably achieve that goal by getting their psychopath to comply with the nuclear agreement that North Korea had agreed to decades ago. Otherwise, China can self-fornicate.
Click to expand...
China can cut off energy to North Korea (gas, coal). If that fails, they have little more leverage.
 
Musburger1 said:
China can cut off energy to North Korea (gas, coal). If that fails, they have little more leverage.
Click to expand...
They could do a lot more than that but even that is pretty damn significant. China is essentially North Korea's only trade partner. China has tremendous political and material leverage over North Korea.

China has done pretty much nothing to quell North Korean aggression for decades. This mess is on them. The US is taking reasonable measures in response to a mess that China should have had under control.
 
If China does this, I see two possible outcomes:
1. Kim capitulates and dismantles the program. This would no doubt entail inspecters as with Iraq previously and a loss of face for Kim.
2. Kim sees the embargo as an act of war and launches an attack.

China's proposal is for North Korea to dismantle their program in conjunction with the US not hosting annual war games off of North Korea's coastline. I don't know if Kim would go for this but the US isn't even considering this proposal.
 
Musburger1 said:
You should evaluate the argument on its merits, not on whom makes the presentation. China is a Communist nation. Russia is not. The argument boils down to this:
1. Russia and China are comfortable with MAD as a deterrent.
2. The US abandoned MAD and has been pursuing a first-strike policy of nuclear supremacy. THAAD is part of the program.

Depending on your point of view, the US policy is considered threatening and destabilizing. Put on the shoes of the other side once in a while.
Click to expand...

Two problems with this. First, though MAD was the best we could do at one time, it's not preferable. If we can defend against missile attacks by anybody, we should. Call it a "first-strike" policy if you want, but that's not what it is. Second, even if MAD worked with Russia and China, they aren't the only nations with missile technology anymore. See North Korea.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Two problems with this. First, though MAD was the best we could do at one time, it's not preferable. If we can defend against missile attacks by anybody, we should. Call it a "first-strike" policy if you want, but that's not what it is. Second, even if MAD worked with Russia and China, they aren't the only nations with missile technology anymore. See North Korea.
Click to expand...
Your second point is valid, the first point is erroneous as policy papers have been written on how to win a nuclear war.
Russia is in the process of deploying hypersonic missiles which can defeat our "shield" and thus put us back in a MAD scenario. The difference now, is there is even less room for error as the US has encroached on the rest of the world having deployed systems on nearly every continent. This has forced Russia and China into an arms race.
By knocking out Ghadafi and Saddam after each gave up their nuclear program, countries like Iran and North Korea are more motivated to obtain nukes fearing they'll be next if they don't have a deterrent.
The US bombed Korea into the Stone Age in the 1950s. Why would they trust us now?
 
We do not however endorse any faction or tendency, including Trotskyism.
Click to expand...

Poor Trosky still cannot catch a break.

Second, even if MAD worked with Russia and China, they aren't the only nations with missile technology anymore. See North Korea.
Click to expand...

Deez beat me to it. It is no longer the West, Russia and China with the nukes. We have rogue nations with nukes now. If China and Russia want to de-escalate, they have to take the nukes away from Kim Jong Un. The damage North Korean artillery can do is a sufficient enough deterrent. If anything, the nuke is better deterrent against China for North Korea.

The best example is the Cuban Missile Crisis. When the USSR installed nukes on Castro's island, the US amassed an army in Forida and was prepared to invade. When Russia removed the nukes, the US removed its invasion force. If China wants to de-escalate, they need to take away the nukes from the crazy dictator of a small country that should not have nukes like the USSR eventually did with Cuba.

Musberger, I actually agree with you on the the EU/NATO needing to back off of Russia and southeast europe/the ukraine, but in this case, North Korea is the problem.
 
Last edited:
"If China and Russia want to deescalate, they have to take the nukes away from Kim Jong Un. The damage North Korean artillery can do is a sufficient enough deterrent."

And what if China can't persuade them?

It's not China that North Korea fears; The Chinese haven't invaded anybody. The US on the other hand is bombing countries, opening up military outposts, conducting war games, sanctioning countries all over the globe. Kim simply fears becoming the next Ghadafi.
 
The bottom line is there is a nutjob in NK hell bent on developing long range nukes asap so his reckless verbal threats can carry bully weight on the int'l stage.

What makes this problem unique on the nuclear landscape and no longer tolerable is he hurls threats of catastrophic nuclear attack every other day.

What if Pakistan were to start making constant threats of nuclear attack on Russia? What if Trump started threatening China with nuclear strikes if they don't get Kim under control? Would anyone disagree with Russia and China ramping up for nuclear war after being repeatedly threatened with nuclear stikes?

In the nuclear world verbal threats of attack are every bit as serious and appropriate to act against as a threatening enemy making preparations for potential launch.

Just because our leaders were too weak to call this lunatic's threats out before does not make it acceptable to allow them to continue without severe reaction.

No other nuclear armed player is allowed 'turn the other cheek' concessions. Placing THAAD in SK is well within our rights after receiving constant verbal nuclear threats.

China would do the same (likely worse) if SK had potential nuclear capabilities and started threatening them with annihilation. This isn't a game, Folks.
 
Last edited:
Musburger1 said:
Brad, what do you propose if Kim doesn't capitulate?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what is possible in all scenarios on a micro level. Neither does anyone else outside of those with high level, inside military knowledge.

I do know there's no other option but for him to disarm willingly or to disarm him by force before he achieves a nuke that can reliably hit the U.S.

The loss of life would likely be staggering, but it'd be peanuts compared to the eventual day Kim sees his reign ending and goes down swinging. Which could come from inside revolt in response to crippling economic sanctions, opposing military actions in response to his reckless behavior, etc.

There can be no tolerance for a constantly threatening, absurdly loose cannon to have long range nukes at his disposal. Think his behavior is reckless now, wait until he has the bite to go with the bark.
 
Suppose Erdogan breaks with NATO and the EU and suppose he embarks on a nuke program (or manages to get his hands on some of our inventory). We've armed Turkey to the teeth. Russia is selling Turkey a 400 system.
Should we...
A. Do nothing
B. Sanctions for Turkey
C. Nuke Istanbul
D. Help the Saudis obtain the bomb
 
We'd treat Erdogan like we were Iran before Obama took over and lifted our boot off their throat to give them a bj instead.

Sanctions with the accepted understanding that if he continues long enough to reach the brink his program will be disarmed by force.

Before Obama's gift, it was the course of action with Iran and we all knew (including Iran) that forceful disarmament was imminent once they hit the brink. Let's see where Israel stands on dealing with Iran in 10 years when the deal expires.

With Erdogan it wouldn't just be us and a few passive Pacific allies resisting like with NK. Not only would half the ME throw a massive sh*t fit, but Russia wouldn't be keen on this either with their past squabbles.

Iran, an isolated Turkey, and NK belong to a new class of nuclear hopefuls with legit Kamikaze potential. The unspoken rules of responsible nuclear behavior won't be followed by these types which makes them unacceptable guardians of nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
And that all by itself is reason to have missile defense, even if all the rest of your gibberish was completely true.
Click to expand...
You tend to be very binary when it comes to analysis. The situation is much more complex than North Korea achieving intercontinental nuclear potential.

Has it even occurred to you that our "defensive capabilities" of erecting anti-ballistic missiles around the perimeters of Russia and China or more likely to trigger an offensive response from one of those countries than suppressing an offensive attack from North Korea? Do you not understand that right now, a nuclear exchange between the US and either Russia or China likely wipes out most life on the planet? North Korea is a petty dictatorship and nobody wants to see them attain a greater nuclear potential than what they currently possess, but turning the Pacific into a massive military zone isn't going to minimize the threat. The odds are it will simply accelerate multiple threats all over the region.

I know that sounds like gibberish to you, but that's because you are unable to analyze anything outside of your binary good/bad worldview.
 
Musburger1 said:
You tend to be very binary when it comes to analysis. The situation is much more complex than North Korea achieving intercontinental nuclear potential.

Has it even occurred to you that our "defensive capabilities" of erecting anti-ballistic missiles around the perimeters of Russia and China or more likely to trigger an offensive response from one of those countries than suppressing an offensive attack from North Korea? Do you not understand that right now, a nuclear exchange between the US and either Russia or China likely wipes out most life on the planet? North Korea is a petty dictatorship and nobody wants to see them attain a greater nuclear potential than what they currently possess, but turning the Pacific into a massive military zone isn't going to minimize the threat. The odds are it will simply accelerate multiple threats all over the region.

I know that sounds like gibberish to you, but that's because you are unable to analyze anything outside of your binary good/bad worldview.
Click to expand...

I understand your whole rap, and we've gone around and around on it several times. I know your theories. I just reject the assumptions that they rely upon, and no, I'm not going to argue them with you for the 20th time in this thread. I'm going to Spain on Thursday, so I'm too busy to do that.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I understand your whole rap, and we've gone around and around on it several times. I know your theories. I just reject the assumptions that they rely upon, and no, I'm not going to argue them with you for the 20th time in this thread. I'm going to Spain on Thursday, so I'm too busy to do that.
Click to expand...
Have a nice trip.
 
Brad Austin said:
I have no idea what is possible in all scenarios on a micro level. Neither does anyone else outside of those with high level, inside military knowledge.

I do know there's no other option but for him to disarm willingly or to disarm him by force before he achieves a nuke that can reliably hit the U.S.

The loss of life would likely be staggering, but it'd be peanuts compared to the eventual day Kim sees his reign ending and goes down swinging. Which could come from inside revolt in response to crippling economic sanctions, opposing military actions in response to his reckless behavior, etc.

There can be no tolerance for a constantly threatening, absurdly loose cannon to have long range nukes at his disposal. Think his behavior is reckless now, wait until he has the bite to go with the bark.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think Kim is a worse version of Assad and will destroy his country and his people before he will voluntarily relinquish power. Hindsight is 20/20 but it seems ridiculous that we didn't do this long ago.

Ultimately, I think the more we look like we are ready to move forward with this plan, the more likely China steps in to take action. China has always been very concerned about all those North Korean refugees streaming into China. And that is what I believe will happen at the first bang. China is afraid of the refugees and wants a buffer w/ SKorea. It may be a nifty leverage point for China to have the wild card NK, but when that wild card gets too risky, they will act.
 
Musburger1 said:
Have a nice trip.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I've honestly never had much interest in Spain, but the wife has to go for work. Since the airfare for me was dirt cheap ($105 round trip), I figured I'd go. Still not totally sure what I'm going to do there.
 
I agree. I think Kim is a worse version of Assad and will destroy his country and his people before he will voluntarily relinquish power. Hindsight is 20/20 but it seems ridiculous that we didn't do this long ago.
Click to expand...

After almost all the communist countries fell like dominos, China went to a more market type economy and with the brutal regime in Vietnam not really threatening anyone outside of its own borders... I think America assumed North Korea would change with the rest of the world. 20 years ago, choosing peace and hoping North Korea would change for the better was the right approach with the information available.

After 20 years it is now clear that North Korea will not rest until it makes the Cold War and possible nuclear annihilation great again. Kim Jong Un is not going anywhere so we are now at the point where something must be done to prevent a cartoon bond villian leader of a tiny, rogue and insignificant nation from destabilizing the Earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top